Denny Zartman

Just now, Micah Mileto said:

Didn't Bell make up a story about the doctor showing her Kennedy's head wound? and also changed her story about recovering large bullet fragments instead of small ones?

How does that change the quote from Dr. Perry? Livingstone quotes Perry as saying "My whole credibility as a trauma surgeon was at stake... I couldn't have made a mistake like that. It destroys my integrity if I don't know an entrance wound from an exit wound!"

54 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Why an entrance wound in the throat as a fact? That area was covered in blood and only seen for a few seconds, not examined microscopically.

Quote

 

"Dr. Perry was up all night. He came into my office the next day and sat down and looked terrible, having not slept. I never saw anybody look so dejected! They called him from Bethesda two or three times in the middle of the night to try to get him to change the entrance wound in the throat to an exit wound," Audrey Bell told me.

"My whole credibility as a trauma surgeon was at stake," Perry told me. "I couldn't have made a mistake like that. It destroys my integrity if I don't know an entrance wound from an exit wound!" he said.

"They really grilled Perry about it," Bell said. "They hounded him for a long time," Arlen Specter in fact went to great lengths to change what Perry had originally been quoted as saying. Specter's problem was that the entire staff at Parkland who had seen the wound insist today that it was an entrance wound.

- Harrison Livingstone, High Treason 2, Pg 121

 

5 hours ago, François Carlier said:

- 1. Oswald fired the shots on Kennedy, he is the sole assassin, and in his flight, trying to flee Dallas, he was seen and caught by a police officer and he killed him. That makes sense !

It doesn't make sense because, among other reasons, Oswald didn't have a motive and Oswald didn't have an escape plan.

David really wanted to make sure that the new guy Chris didn't get any ideas in his head about Oswald being not guilty. It's very important to this man, whose job is verifying the truth in the news department of WFAA, in 2019, to make sure all the news anchors believe Oswald is guilty.

Interesting. I'm looking forward to checking it out.

Reported.

Gee whiz, it's been proven that Oswald was in the sniper's nest merrily shooting away. Why oh why would anyone have to threaten Frazier about anything at all? Keep silent about what? If everything points conclusively to Oswald's guilt, there should be nothing to keep silent about, right?

I know it's probably an actual oddity rather than anything significant, but when I read it, my first thought was "Wow. No way in the world that's real." I was positive that it had to be some joke by a Wikipedia editor, yet it seems to be a fact. I'm sure much better minds than mine have noticed this long ago. I'm just struck by, out of all of the names in the country, it just happened to be that particular one. I don't think of Oswald as being a common last name, but maybe I'm wrong on that. I try to always be skeptical of anything in this case that relies on sheer coincidence for an explanation.

I'm not making any theory about it (I don't think), just noting how unlikely and strange it is.

22 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

Hi Rob, thanks and you are most welcome. Yes that slip up by Lovelady is a one of its kind. Yet Dingo Brian Doyle uses it as proof that Stanton is Prayer Man.

I am just amazed and the overall response to this one sheet of paper, and the veracity of the so called responses by 'the other side' speaks volumes. As they slowly realise that none of their argument stick.

 

I think it's a significant find, and I also thank you for bringing it to our attention. It's an important piece of the puzzle.

So anti-JFK Hunt or his people decided after the assassination to have a meeting with the lone assassin's widow in order to mitigate potential criticism from pro-JFK folks? That doesn't seem to make sense. Seems to me if you don't want to bring attention to your previous anti-JFK positions, you don't go around making contact with the killer's widow. And how exactly would this criticism-mitigating pr plan work if the meeting is kept secret?

Why in the world would Hunt want to meet with Marina? I'd also like to know more about this alleged meeting. Steve is right. If there was a meeting, the Hunt note should probably be reevaluated.

Quote

Charles Harrelson was born on July 23, 1938, in Lovelady, Texas,[3] the son of Alma Lee (née Sparks) (1907-2002) and Voyde Harrelson (1901-1976). He was married to Nancy Hillman Harrelson, Diane Lou Oswald, Jo Ann Harrelson and Gina Adelle Foster. Harrelson worked as an encyclopedia salesman in California and as a professional gambler. In 1960, he was convicted of armed robbery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Harrelson

And Boom goes the Mind.

Probably of no material significance, but seriously, what are the chances of a coincidence that weird?

Did Marina socialize with anyone during her time in Dallas?

Excellent post, Robert. I'm giving it a lot of thought. Thanks.

Wow. I didn't think the information in this thread could get worse for our LN friends, but certainly seems to have happened.

2 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Shortly after I entered the building, I confronted Oswald. The man who identified himself as the superintendent said that Oswald was alright, that he was employed there. We left Oswald there, and the supervisor showed me the way upstairs

By the LN's own logic, this statement by "Officer E" shows the timeline to be: Officer E enters the building on the first floor, Officer E confronts Oswald, Truly clears Oswald, Truly shows Officer E upstairs apparently after trying and failing to get someone to send the elevator down.

According to this statement by "Officer E" Oswald wasn't on the sixth floor, on his way down from the sixth floor, or even on the second floor. Oswald was on the first floor.

If Oswald wanted to be connected to that rifle (as the backyard photos would seem to indicate), he could have ordered it under his own name. He could have carved his initials into the wood. Instead, he didn't even bother to leave prints on it until after he was dead.

If Oswald didn't want to be connected to that rifle, he could have purchased in person with cash and left no paper trail whatsoever. He also could have, y' know, avoided posing for photos with it, too. That might have helped a little bit.

We're talking about an assassin that had it so together he was able to dash upstairs, use his misaligned rifle to fire two accurate shots (and one shot that missed both the limo and the street surrounding it) at a moving target, wipe the rifle of prints, run a maze of boxes to hide the rifle, dash downstairs past at least one law officer, get outside, board at least two vehicles, and make a clean getaway... but who was so disorganized he drops one of his three wallets at the scene of the Tippit murder, carries around an ID with the alias he used to order a rifle that he plans on denying he owns, and can't think of anywhere better to escape to than a movie theater.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

WC apologists here tell us Oswald was lying to hide his guilt in the assassination.   Really?  He was so stupid that he shot the President from his own workplace and hoped to get away with it?

It never fails to amaze me how the LN's can whiplash back and forth between claiming LHO wasn't telling the truth in order to hide his guilt and claiming LHO wanted to earn his place in history.

• Why did LHO claim to be on the lower floors? He was lying to hide his guilt.
• Why did LHO not have a getaway plan? He wanted to be caught.
• Why did LHO deny both murders? He was lying to hide his guilt until he could go to trial and announce his guilt. 🙄
• Why did LHO order a rifle and a revolver using an alias? He didn't want to be connected to the rifle.
• Why did LHO order a rifle and a revolver using an alias, (when he could have gone into any gun store in Texas, paid cash, and left no paper trail if he REALLY didn't want to be connected to the rifle) and then carry an ID with that alias with him when committing his crimes? He wanted to be connected to the rifle.
• Why did LHO have his picture taken with his weapons and with Russian newspapers? He wanted to be connected to the rifle and explain his political motive.
• Why did LHO deny owning a rifle at all? He was lying to hide his guilt.
• Why did LHO kill JFK? He desperately wanted to be "somebody" and earn his place in history.
• Why did LHO say he didn't kill anyone and had nothing against JFK? He was lying to hide his guilt.

I believe the LN's on this forum have run out of gas. It appears that they have nothing of value to contribute to our understanding of this particular case. It's little more than circular arguments and personal insults at this point, and it seems to have been this way for quite a while. It's grown tiresome, IMHO. I wouldn't be replying to the LN's in question or addressing the situation at all, but our LN friends are determined to continue to louse up the forum with their nonsense. It's a shame, because I'm sure it discourages other good, fair-minded folks from engaging in the conversation and contributing something of actual value.

It looks like this note is not proof that LHO was outside or on the first floor. It does seem to be proof that LHO's story of being on the lower floors was consistent, and that the authorities didn't want this consistent story to come to light. The LN's failure to understand this should be evidence that they don't really comprehend the evidence. It's okay to admit that. There's lots of evidence I don't comprehend, and hopefully I'll be the first one to admit that. Their refusal to admit that there could be evidence that they don't understand is why they should be more humble.

10 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

Quote :
The “Prayer Man” nonsense is being promoted by yet another snake oil salesman, Bart Kamp. He and Ralph “the fraud” Cinque should get a hotel room. I am so disgusted with these intellectually dishonest charlatans that I vigilantly avoid anything and everything with which they are involved.
[Greg Burnham Feb. 11 2018.]

If that quote is genuine, then I must say that Burnham is worthy of applause !!!!!

It's sad that you have nothing better to contribute than attacks and personal insults.

You should be more humble.

4 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

Yeah, sure.
You seem to live in a topsy-turvy world. It's time you woke up.
If you are indeed looking for logic and truth, let me give you a clue : that's nowhere to be found on the Kamp/Larsen side.
Unless, of course, you prefer to be biased. Which you look like...

You should be more humble.

13 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

There's a Dealey Plaza witness breakdown included as one of Walt Brown's ebooks from his JFK chronology, and it runs hundreds of pages with quotes, analysis and commentary. I'm yet to really dig into it. The Kindle version is linked below.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Master-Chronology-JFK-Assassination-Appendix-ebook/dp/B00G4G0E1E

Thanks very much for the tip! I'll definitely get it.

14 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

This map has always been of assistance for me. Don Roberdeau  updates it regularly. He is also a member of the Ed Forum.

 

I've seen that before, but thanks for linking to it again. It's hard for me to get a tremendous amount from it, but that's my fault. I just find most of it difficult to read. I do appreciate the work that went into it, and the pictures from the "sniper's nest". It also helps me to understand where the Harper fragment was found (something I've never been 100% clear on.)

5 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Me, I'm a student in the Vincent Salandria School of Research into the Obvious.  The universe of the obvious in the murder of JFK isn't all that complex.

You and I may find what we believe to be simple and obvious explanations for a lot of these details. There's a reason I haven't participated in the Prayer Man threads. But the truth is that this case is complex because there are others who look at the same details and also find a simple explanation which just happen to be completely at odds with our own "simple" explanation. If Oswald didn't go to Mexico City, the explanation for why the authorities insisted that he did is not simple and straightforward. We can not agree that he did or did not go. If he did go, why? If he didn't go, why do they continue to insist that he did? If after more than half a century we can't answer the question "could Oswald drive?" that's not a simple case.

A lot of the evidence has been destroyed or hidden or falsified, a lot of testimony changed, a lot of witnesses intimidated or even eliminated, and a lot of intentional disinformation has been spread. Probably more than we will ever really know. Saying that the murder of JFK isn't that complex given that we are relying upon a distorted, incomplete, and often contradictory record IMHO doesn't reflect the true nature of this case. We also possibly have a number of participants who were actively trying to hide their roles and pretending to be other people. Piecing together what really happened from that distorted, incomplete, and contradictory record isn't an easy task. If it were truly simple, I doubt we would still be battling over these details today.

7 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

That’s a fair observation, but the case is in fact extraordinarily complex. Also, it is not unusual for interest in topics in American History to lead towards what could be described as obsessive cultism. Have you ever been to a Civil War reenactment?

A further example - this week I have been flipping through a 400 page minute-by-minute analysis of the Custer’s Last Stand battle. That is a very famous event which most Americans have at least heard of, which has received varying degrees of focussed attention since it happened, and has retained a sort of generalized public interest, including visits to its rather remote location which is a popular national park. Beyond that, a much smaller number of persons have cultivated a more intense personal interest, which would include debates over how many members of C Company went over which ridge at what time and other similar topics addressed in, for example, the book I have been flipping through, which is not really directed to anything like a mass audience.  What can be seen as obsessive interest can also be understood as a healthy interest which attracts a small but devoted number of persons as a naturally occurring phenomenon which underlines and confirms a recurring general interest.

I'm glad there are people out there who will micro analyze every detail of this case. I'm not knocking them or their efforts, nor am I saying that they shouldn't be micro analyzing. The case is important enough to deserve close scrutiny. I'm saying the complexity and the amount of details being analyzed might initially seem overwhelming to a beginner, and that might explain some of the perceived waning interest.

As someone who's been reading JFK books for years, I'm still bewildered by the sheer amount of information that I still need to study. I'd imagine that for someone coming in cold, it would be utterly mystifying. If I were a beginner I would be daunted by the mountain of minutia being endlessly debated. I'm not a beginner and I'm still daunted.

Does anyone think we need another breakdown of Dealey Plaza witness? As in, location, number of shots, direction of shots, and any other relevant statements?

https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/index.htm

The one linked above is the one I've been using the most, but it appears not to have been updated in over 15 years. It also seems other sources (including Mark Lane's Rush To Judgment and Craig Ciccone's Master List Of Witnesses) have some additional names.

I've already collected names from those three sources and put them on index cards, but haven't yet really dug into examining the statements of each witness and trying to put it all together. I'm wondering if it's even necessary, or if it's just my OCD acting up again. I know there was never a true survey of all the witnesses (and that many witnesses were bullied into going along with the official story), but it always bugs me whenever I read a JFK book and they use vague terms in describing how many people heard how many shots and where they thought they were coming from.